Civil jurisdiction in possession injunction suits survives absent statutory bar; second appeal may fail without substantial questions of law.

Civil court jurisdiction remains available for a suit for permanent injunction based on possession and land identification unless expressly or impliedly barred by statute; a revenue-law exclusion did not cover a simpliciter possession dispute, so the maintainability objection failed. In second appeal, Section 100 CPC requires substantial questions of law to be framed only when such questions actually arise; where none arose, the appeal could be dismissed without framing them. Refusal to admit additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 was also upheld because the documents did not bear on the disputed factual controversy already tried below.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred in a suit for permanent injunction concerning possession and identification of agricultural land; (ii) whether the High Court was bound to frame substantial questions of law before dismissing the second appeal and whether refusal to allow additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 was erroneous.

Issue (i): whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred in a suit for permanent injunction concerning possession and identification of agricultural land.

Analysis: The dispute was not one falling within the express exclusions under the land revenue law. It was a simpliciter suit for injunction based on possession, and the controversy was only as to whether the land formed part of one khasra number or another. The statutory bar relied upon did not extend to such a claim, and no special mechanism under the revenue enactment provided a remedy for injunction in a possession dispute. Civil court jurisdiction remained available under the general rule that civil courts have plenary jurisdiction unless expressly or impliedly excluded.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction and the objection to maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court was bound to frame substantial questions of law before dismissing the second appeal and whether refusal to allow additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 was erroneous.

Analysis: Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, formulation of substantial questions of law is required only when such questions actually arise. If the High Court finds that no substantial question of law is involved, it may dismiss the second appeal without framing one. The request for additional evidence was also rightly declined because the documents pertained to a land claim the appellants were not asserting over the disputed village land, and the parties had already understood and contested the precise factual controversy before the courts below.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the refusal to admit additional evidence was not erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal did not disclose any legal error warranting interference, and the dismissal of the appeal was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A second appeal may be dismissed without framing substantial questions of law where none arise, and a civil suit for injunction based on possession is maintainable unless the jurisdiction of the civil court is expressly or impliedly barred by statute.

---